Enriquez et al v. Interstate Group, LLC et al
Filing
42
ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF re 41 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Shawn Luteyn, Quinn Colmenero, Interstate Group, LLC, Jose Enriquez. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/12/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2012)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
JOSE ENRIQUEZ and QUINN COLMENERO,
individually and on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated,
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
Case No.: 4:11-cv-05155-YGR
ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF
Plaintiffs,
vs.
12
13
14
INTERSTATE GROUP, LLC; SHAWN LUTEYN;
and DOES 1 to 50,
Defendants.
15
16
17
On July 6, 2012, the Parties filed a Joint Discovery Letter Brief regarding Plaintiffs'
18
Interrogatory No. 2, which requested the names, mailing addresses, and phone numbers of putative
19
class members. Dkt. No. 41, "Joint Discovery Letter Brief" ("JDLB"). Defendants concede that such
20
information must ultimately be provided but believe an "opt out" or "Pioneer" notice should first be
21
sent to individuals whose information it must provide. Id. at 3; see Pioneer Elecs. (USA), Inc. v.
22
Superior Court, 40 Cal. 4th 360 (2007). Defendant further requests that names and contact
23
information provided in response to the interrogatory be "attorneys' eyes only." JDLB at 3.
24
Plaintiffs have conceded that they need only names and mailing addresses of putative class
25
members; they do not seek telephone numbers. Id. at 4. In light of this concession, the Court finds
26
Pioneer-style notices to be unnecessary. See In re Autozone Wage & Hour Empl. Practices Litig., No.
27
10-md-02159 CRB (JSC), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132973 at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011) ("[T]he
28
Court is not persuaded that [disclosure of names and addresses of putative class members] constitutes
1
such a serious invasion of privacy that an "opt out" procedure is required, at least where Plaintiffs
2
intend to use the information to contact the putative class member by mail."), Alvarez v. Hyatt
3
Regency Long Beach, No. CV 09-03791-GAF (VBKx), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99281 at *5 (C.D.
4
Cal. March 2, 2010) ("[T]he Court is not persuaded that an opt-out system is necessary, both for
5
pragmatic and legal reasons.").
6
The Court likewise denies Defendant's request for attorneys' eyes only protection. However,
7
this order is without prejudice to any subsequent motion for a protective order made upon a showing
8
of competent evidence that Plaintiffs have made, or will make, improper use of putative class
9
members' names and/or addresses.
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
The Court hereby ORDERS Defendant to answer Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 2, minus phone
contact information.
12
This Order Terminates Docket Number 41.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated: July 12,2012
15
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?